SAID MILDLY, regardless of the eventual determination that will be made with respect to the appropriateness of "terrorism (-related)" charges in this horrific case ±
3/3 such a statement made by Members of Parliament, who are persons in authority, is at the very least premature and not appropriate.
THIS STATEMENT can be viewed in different ways. But regardless of how it appears,it contributes to a perception that the course and outcome of ±
4/4 the investigation (and in turn, justice) can be affected by politicians and their politics, or worse, by unnecessarily raising the spectre of political interference.
2/7 This position adopted is untenable. And, I have every confidence that it cannot be sustained.
FIRSTLY, it flies in face of a recent Ontario Superior Court ruling by Justice Edward Belobaba [Zarei v Iran, 2021 ONSC 3377 | Court File No. CV-20-635078 (dated 20210520)]:
3/7 "The plaintiffs have established that the shooting down of Flight 752 by the defendants was an act of terrorism and constitutes 'terrorist activity'..." p. 12
SAID IN OTHER WORDS,this was not an accident or tragedy, but an ATROCITY [literally, a 'mass murder'].
1/3 AS A FORMER #RCMP (Ret’d), I am concerned about such statements being made by ANY politician.
RISKING SERIOUS UNDERSTATEMTN, they are at best inappropriate, and could even be viewed as an attempt to otherwise ‘direct’ [italics] the course and/or outcome of an investigation.
2/3 AS AN INVESTIGATOR, I was always mindful of and exercised vigilance with respect to my responsibilities to never cause to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
MOST REGRETTABLY, such statements can carry the taint of political interference. The appropriate
3/3 police agency with jurisdiction - @lpsmediaoffice (and possibly with assistance of @rcmpgrcpolice) will and must assess the evidence without any regard for such statements. I have every confidence that they will do just that.
2
during 2015 federal election #Elxn42, I can say @JohnIbbitson DOESN'T approach the blight existing between the floorboards.
IN ALL FAIRNESS THOUGH - that is not the focus of @JohnIbbitson's op-ed. Column space is limited.
Far from being a welcoming "Big Blue Tent",
3 @CPC_HQ is riddled with a not-so-nice undercurrent of 'shenanigans and subterfuge' [polite description]. Actually, it could be said to be a type of rot.
The undercurrent (or if one prefers, rot) is resulting in a hemorrhage - a damaging loss of valuable people.
@OmarAlghabra tweets: "Canada will accept nothing less from the Iranian regime than a FULL and HONEST explanation of the circumstances surrounding this TRAGEDY"
Our choice of words matter. #PS752 - IT IS NOT a "tragedy". IT IS an "atrocity. (Attach)
There are specific linguistic tics that can signal deceit. Words reveal.
LOOKING AT WHAT @JustinTrudeau SAYS and focusing on one element worth taking a look at: namely, his use of the qualifier "extremely". It is a non-essential amplifier. Its repetition, weightage of ±
placement and in particular, the peculiar intensity with which he enunciates it. TRUDEAU uses it twice (0:10; 1:32), in a lengthy English response (1 min 27 sec).Like bookends, at the beginning of his response and again,at the end. His enunciation in each instance is unnatural. ±
To be clear, there are no absolute "tells" that can definitively (or singularly) indicate deception. THAT SAID, TRUDEAU's use of "extremely" taken with a cluster of features (i.e. pauses filled with utterances "ah" "um" "er" and "uh", vocal tension, postural shifts, head nods ±
AS @JustinTrudeau hums and haws, chattering about alphabets - THAT he must ensure “all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed” before citing #China ...
«THOUGHT IMMEDIATELY OF ANOTHER WORD» that also has I's and T's and may be a suitable descriptor as PMJT averts his eyes.